Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States

Main pageTalkEmbassyRequested
Articles
MembersPortalRecognized
content
To doHelp
    Welcome to the discussion page of WikiProject United States


    Good article reassessment for J. D. B. v. North Carolina

    edit

    J. D. B. v. North Carolina has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 16:28, 6 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Would appreciate some eyes on this. Pasting what I wrote there for context:

    This article needs pruning, but I am unsure of where to begin, or what the end result should ultimately look like. If there is a policy for what "Political positions of ______" pages should look like, I am unaware of it (and would appreciate a link to). However, I think we can all agree that there is no reason why the article on Jeb Bush's political positions should be 605.99% larger than his brother's.

    Jeb Bush hasn't been in a position to directly influence American policy since leaving gubernatorial office in 2007. Since then, he had an infamously unsuccessful presidential campaign in 2016, has been involved with a number of lobbyist groups (e.g. Foundation for Excellence in Education, United Against Nuclear Iran, the James Madison Institute), and occasionally contributes to media outlets as an op-ed columnist. This article gives WP:UNDUE weight to his stated positions on the 2016 campaign trail; eight years down the line and three presidential elections later, it is safe to say that they ultimately fail the WP:10YEARTEST.

    By the end of this discussion, I'd like to set up an outline for how the article should be restructured and discuss what should or should not remain. My immediate thoughts:

    • I'd like to avoid splitting the article into sub-subsections unless absolutely necessary to avoid MOS:OVERSECTION.
    • I believe the most weight should be given to his political positions during his tenure as governor, followed by his post-gubernatorial career as a lobbyist and op-ed columnist, followed by comments made on the 2016 campaign trail.
    • Anything that did not influence public policy probably does not deserve a section unto itself. For example, his opinion on the Confederate flag, the name of the Washington Commanders (né Redskins), or his comments about the "French workweek" seem particularly superfluous.

    Discuss.
    — User:Kodiak Blackjack 20:52, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

    Kodiak Blackjack (talk) • (contribs) 00:42, 10 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

    These seem like sound principles, although I don't think the size vis a vis his brother is that important. I found the International relations section the most unneeded, it seems mostly news-style reporting of specific statements. For what it's worth there is one relevant GA, Political positions of Paul Ryan. CMD (talk) 00:59, 10 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Good article reassessment for Joseph McCarthy

    edit

    Joseph McCarthy has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Good article reassessment for East Carolina University

    edit

    East Carolina University has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Good article reassessment for Neal Boortz

    edit

    Neal Boortz has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Requested move at Talk:Death of Abdul Wahid#Requested move 8 November 2024

    edit
     

    There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Death of Abdul Wahid#Requested move 8 November 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 21:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

     

    There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Economic policy of the Joe Biden administration#Requested move 10 November 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 00:04, 16 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Good article reassessment for John Glenn Columbus International Airport

    edit

    John Glenn Columbus International Airport has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:28, 16 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Good article reassessment for The Contest

    edit

    The Contest has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 19:13, 17 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Discussion on the renaming of the article Allegations of United States support for the Khmer Rouge

    edit

    Please see here for a discussion about renaming Allegations of United States support for the Khmer Rouge to United States support for the Khmer Rouge. FOARP (talk) 17:15, 21 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Good article reassessment for Dick Cheney

    edit

    Dick Cheney has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 22:38, 21 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Requested move at Talk:European Union–United States relations#Requested move 23 November 2024

    edit
     

    There is a requested move discussion at Talk:European Union–United States relations#Requested move 23 November 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Web-julio (talk) 00:09, 25 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Good article reassessment for Batman in film

    edit

    Batman in film has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 20:34, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Good article reassessment for Margaret Chin

    edit

    Margaret Chin has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 20:41, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Good article reassessment for Ne-Yo

    edit

    Ne-Yo has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 01:20, 1 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

    There is a RfC ongoing at Talk:2004 United States election voting controversies#RFC: What Went Wrong in Ohio, an article within the scope of this WikiProject. All editors are invited to participate. Toa Nidhiki05 18:26, 2 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Requested move at Talk:Expectation of privacy (United States)#Requested move 25 November 2024

    edit
     

    There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Expectation of privacy (United States)#Requested move 25 November 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 02:33, 10 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Requested move at Talk:Nonpartisan blanket primary#Requested move 2 December 2024

    edit
     

    There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Nonpartisan blanket primary#Requested move 2 December 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 02:40, 10 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

    List of Confederate States senators

    edit

    My concern is that every single man on this list is in fact a traitor, and treason has reasons to source. Please fix this issue. Bearian (talk) 11:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Good article reassessment for Mitch Daniels

    edit

    Mitch Daniels has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 17:56, 18 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Good article reassessment for 2017 World Series

    edit

    2017 World Series has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 18:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Good article reassessment for Anuel AA

    edit

    Anuel AA has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 03:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Good article reassessment for American automobile industry in the 1950s

    edit

    American automobile industry in the 1950s has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 03:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Good article reassessment for 1st Brigade, 7th Infantry Division (United States)

    edit

    1st Brigade, 7th Infantry Division (United States) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Hog Farm Talk 20:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Good article reassessment for American Horror Story

    edit

    American Horror Story has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 23:20, 26 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Reliable sources for US political articles

    edit

    There is an interesting discussion regarding reliable sources for US political articles at WT:RS#This is curious... --Magnolia677 (talk) 14:27, 27 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Good article reassessment for Wings (1927 film)

    edit

    Wings (1927 film) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 16:45, 28 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Good article reassessment for 102nd Intelligence Wing

    edit

    102nd Intelligence Wing has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Good article reassessment for Massachusetts Institute of Technology

    edit

    Massachusetts Institute of Technology has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 16:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

    A problem with politics articles, especially senator articles

    edit

    Mark Kelly: "A member of the Democratic Party, he has been the senior U.S. senator from Arizona since 2020". This isn't actually true. He's been in the Senate since 2020, but he only just became the senior senator. I think similar statements appear in a number of articles. 174.160.82.127 (talk) 07:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Correct. It's a problem that people care about shoehorning in whether they are the junior or senior senator without regard for sentence flow. Please edit those articles to fix it or at least tell us which ones do this. I'll fix Kelly. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)Reply